OK. So now, how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers? And shouldn’t a Supreme Court nominee be able to answer that question? Is it not pertinent to a Supreme Court Justices’ job?
JWK
.
I wonder how many more turncoat “Republican” Senators, other than Collins, will give a thumbs up to this BLM socialist revolutionary, to be our next Supreme Court Justice.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
See:
April 4, 2022
.
And yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one Republican member on the committee questioned Jackson how one goes about determining the true meaning of our Constitution’s passages.
Is determining what our Constitution means not one of the most fundamental tasks of a Supreme Court Justice? Why, then, is there a continual failure of S.C. nomination committees to delve into this most important line of questioning?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
I don’t understand the angst here.
She will be confirmed and she won’t be worse than RBG.
Camp,
It’s more about a troubling and confirmed predictable disappointment! Not one of the 11 “Republican” members on the hearing’s committee questioned nominee Jackson how one goes about to legitimately determine when a provision of our federal constitution is violated, or its defined and limited grants of power are breached.
Of course, as I expected, the 11 Republicans were exceeding adept in arousing emotional fervor and passion by attacking some of Jackson’s past history. But all 22 committee members were somehow in full harmony in avoiding any discussion on some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and questioning Jackson how, does one legitimately determine the true meaning of our Constitution’s provisions and written protections therein.
Is it not a fundamental task of a Supreme Court Justice’s job to determine the true meaning of our Constitution’s provisions?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Everything you state is 100 percent correct.
They forced the retirement.
I think the silver lining here is she is so mediocre intellectually that she will be an ineffective radical.
There are other battles to fight.
We got a real talent with Barrett.
Yeah, not like he said a wise Latina would always come to a better decision than a white male. He should have just said that so he could win confirmation.
Yes, but pray for Thomas’s health …
Absolutely!!
Why?
Allan
Afraid of him going belly up before the republicans gain a senate majority.
The only thing that would mean would make Robert’s the swing vote yet again.
Allan
Not afraid. Wanting the best for the country.
Best for the country is a split SCOTUS.
You probably disagree.
Allan
Split between left leaning constitutional textualists and right leaning constitutional textualists… yes. Split between constitutional textualists and constitutional anti-textualists… no.
I don’t want 5 textualists, I want 5 realists.
Allan
Textualist and realist are not mutually exclusive terms.
Justice Thomas is one of the few who actually follow the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and works to defend and support the text of the Constitution and its documented legislative intent as stated during the framing and ratification debates which gives context to its text.
And that is why our revolutionary democrat party leadership hate him with a passion ___ he refuses to make any attempt to make the constitution mean what he feels it should mean.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Why not? Do you wish Justice Thomas bad health because he is one of the few Justices who has actually supported and defended the true meaning of our Constitution?
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
I wish him nothing but the best health.
Just doing hypotheticals.
Thomas won’t be there forever and will be replaced as all SCOTUS justices.
My one fervent hope is that we have a democratic POTUS and a democratic Senate when he resigns/dies so that he can be replaced with someone with more modern thinking.
Allan
And why not hope for the nomination of Supreme Court Justices who will actually support and defend “this Constitution”, which they take an oath to do, rather than imposing their personal predilections as the rule of law, and ignoring the true meaning of our Constitution?
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
